Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
It probably seems "mostly" right to you because it is an umbrella statement that probably covers elements of deep personal changes in most people.
It seems to loosely follow Skinner's respondent conditioning elements of antecedent/behavior/consequence, although her definition of "casual events" is unclear. Could it be "causal events"?
Skinner's theories on respondent conditioning are well grounded in formal research. In Ms. Kress's case, the three elements she suggests would have to work together closely: Receptivity to change depends strongly on whether or not the change is "validating" or rewarding (reinforcing, in behaviorist jargon) in order for the change to stablize. Assuming she meant "causal", the causal event would have to prompt the behaviors associated with the personal change (that happens to be validating to the person).
Again, assuming "casual" to be a typo, I would have to say that the statement, in and of itself, is not untrue. The true test, however, is how the statement is applied. It is possible to botch efforts to change behavior, you know.
Interesting, though ... she doesn't seem to consider in her statement that deep personal changes can be elicited by negative experiences. I suppose one could argue that escaping from negative consequences is validating, in a way. E.g., if we discontinue our subscription to Maxim because of a fear of offending our significant other, would Ms. Kress consider the result "validating"?
Interesting topic, Christopher.